8 ms·

This is a good point though. What do you folks suggest for the standard traffic stop, along the lines of, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Presuma

This is a good point though. What do you folks suggest for the standard traffic stop, along the lines of, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Presumably both "yes" and "no" would be bad. (The former is obvious, and the latter could mean you're not paying sufficient attention, etc.) So, do you just stare at them in silence? Do you say something like, "I'd rather not answer," which while accurate, sure sounds like "yes". (At the very least, there goes your chance of a warning instead of a ticket...)[1] I agree with serve_yay that many of these situations start off seeming innocuous, and staying silent is easier said than done. Another example is the cops canvasing the area of a crime, looking for info. Do you just refuse to speak to them without a lawyer, even though you had nothing to do with it? It's certainly possible (albeit unlikely) that they actually have you as a suspect and are trying to trick you into some sort of false statement. (Or a statement that appears to be false because it conflicts with other evidence, even if it's true!) But in the vast majority of cases it'll be exactly what it seems. Or say you actually witnessed a crime. Or were the victim! Still lawyer up before talking to the cops? It appears the safest thing is, yes, always get a lawyer. But at some point on the spectrum, does the cost and inconvenience outweigh the insurance factor of doing so? [1] I've only been in that situation a couple times, but I've tried my best to answer politely without saying anything material. One way to do that is to answer questions with questions. "Do you know how fast you were going?" "How fast was I going, Sir?"

dingaling 12y ago
> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The only responses you should use in such situations are: 'No comment' 'Am I free to go?' Plus the statutory minimum ( name, address, DoB according to your local legislation ). Psychologically it is very, very difficult. One way to try to handle it is to pretend you're responding to Emacs Eliza, which will always try to turn your words back onto you.
- smcl 12y ago
  Have you used either of those responses before? Judging from my limited exposure with the police this sort of "technically I don't have to do this\answer this" response is an invite for a cranky cop to do everything they can to inconvenience you as a punishment. For example in my case if I'd carried on doing what I was doing (talking to my friend at conversational level and smiling, while a passing police officer told me "you can wipe that smirk off your face or I'll do it for you" followed by vague suggestions that I should be taken to the police station) I should be able to rest easy knowing I've done nothing wrong and there's not a single crime I could've been found guilty of at that moment. However, they probably could've made my life extremely unpleasant - taking me in for some sort of "questioning", spending a night in the cells - who knows. So this is a long-winded way to ask - is that totally ironclad\foolproof, or is there a non-zero chance that this response will make the situation worse despite being totally legal?
  - tempestn 12y ago
    One thing they can easily do, which once happened to me after being nothing but polite: take your driver's license, walk back to their car, and play on their phone for half an hour. I imagine the chances of that would go up with a non-cooperative response. I'm certainly not saying you should spill your guts, but at least being as polite as possible without saying anything incriminating seems sensible.
  - lmm 12y ago
    It's about the worst case. Can that make the situation worse? Absolutely. A cop can, at least where I live, throw you in a cell for 48 hours for any reason (other than being a member of a protected class) or none, just on their say-so. If they do it every day their superiors are going to start asking questions, but for a one-off "trust me on this one guys" a cop definitely has that legal authority, and if you piss them off enough it could be the difference between walking away and spending those two nights in jail. (More realistically, it'll make the difference between walking away and going down to the station to be fingerprinted and the like and released after a few hours). But if you incriminate yourself, or commit a crime by e.g. making a false statement as in the article, then you could be looking at a lot more than two nights.
  - philbarr 12y ago
    Exactly - I know someone who tried to go the smart-arse route, and the police ended up spending 45 minutes looking into every possible detail of the car, right down to "the lights have the wrong pattern on them". Ended up costing them far more than just accepting a speeding ticket.
venomsnake 12y ago
> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The proper answer is - "No, because I know exactly where I am"
- Erwin 12y ago
  That's going to get you instantly arrested in Albuquerque, NM.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    They outlaw science there?
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      Perhaps the opposite: Maybe he was referencing the physics research there?
dvirsky 12y ago
How can saying "Yes, I know" get you into bigger trouble than a speeding ticket? At best you can try to lie and state a legal speed if you were going in a borderline speed. Anyway, it could be different in the US (I'm from Israel, where police is brutal only if you're Palestinian or holding a political rally. Otherwise they're mostly useless). I only got pulled once, for not coming to a complete stop on a stop sign (I slowed down to almost a complete stop). I just politely said "yeah officer, I did slow down, but it's my bad, sorry". The reaction was "oh well, I see you don't have any prior traffic violations, I'm going to let this one slide, have a nice day".
- pluma 12y ago
  No indicates recklessness. Yes indicates intent. You're screwed either way.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    No might indicate negligence, which isn't as horrible as recklessness.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    Yes doesn't indicate anything except awareness. They usually will follow it up with "How fast were you going?"
  - fluidcruft 12y ago
    I agree "no" is a bad idea. But I doubt "yes" has to do with intent at all. I think procedurally what the officer is doing is establishing a documentation record to support their speed facts because that makes it easy for them if/when you contest the ticket in court. The officer has a preferred narrative/mold and is trying find a way to document that you agree with that version at the time you were pulled over in case you try to change the story later in court. So "yes, I know" seems to work essentially as that blanket acceptance of the officer's narrative.
  - dvirsky 12y ago
    But what's the worst that could happen? Let's say you're not drunk, you don't have anything illegal in your car, and the speed is nothing too bad. You were just speeding. Can anything you say result in anything worse than a ticket and a fine?
akent 12y ago
> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Do as politicians do; don't answer the question, change tack. "Here's my driver licence, officer."
ctdonath 12y ago
"Do you know how fast you were going?" Or, in my case a couple weeks back, "any reason you were going so fast?" You don't have to answer. I didn't (though I may have babbled some irrelevancies while digging out the paperwork). It's actually quite a mental & social breakthrough to realize you don't have to answer people's questions. As for being a victim or witness, still best to keep statements very short, as in "that man assaulted me, there's the stick he hit me with, and that woman walking away saw it, I want to press charges and I need to talk to a lawyer" or "I witnessed the attack, here's my contact information". You say what you must to establish legitimate victimhood ("she stole my cocaine" isn't), identify perpetrators and witnesses, and identify probable perishable evidence. Then. Shut. Up. The only thing to say at this point is "am I free to go?" - repeatedly, if necessary. They'll say & do darned near anything, but at some point they have to either arrest you or not stop you from leaving.
- jrs235 12y ago
  Officer: "any reason you were going so fast?" You: "I wasn't going fast. I was driving at a safe and prudent speed given the conditions." ADD: It is good to know if the state you are in or states your frequently drive in is/are "Maximum Speed Limit" or "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" state(s). I grew up in Minnesota which is a "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" but now live in WI which is a "Maximum Speed Limit". The nice thing about Minnesota and "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" is that if you are on a highway outside of a municipality (so in a township) then the posted speed limits are only presumed to be the maximum speed limit. Going faster is prima facie evidence of going to fast and allows officers to stop you. However, if you choose to fight the ticket in court, you can admit to going faster than the posted limit and argue that you were still driving a safe and prudent speed given the conditions. So, if you were in the country driving 65 on a straight and level road with a posted speed limit of 55 on a clear, dry day with 10+ miles of visibility and no other cars on the road, people or animals int he ditch or near the shoulder and a cop caught you on his laser device sitting 1/2 mile down the road, assuming you slowed down to 55 mph before getting close to him, you could argue these facts in court and argue that "the facts and outcomes speak for themselves"... no one was harmed or injured showing again that the speed of 65 mph in those conditions and circumstances was in fact still safe and prudent. In Wisconsin, if you admit to going over the posted speed limit anywhere, you're guilty of not driving a safe and prudent speed no matter what. IANAL, but this book was an eye opener: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413312519/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1413312519&linkCode=as2&tag=ptbgw-20&linkId=XU424AMFF4KCUYEI http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413312519/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... (affiliate link) save your money though and borrow it from the library.
jrs235 12y ago
Officer: "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" You: "The speed limit." (Even if going faster than the limit, you were minimally going the limit.) O: "Do you know what the speed limit is?" Y: "Yes, it's [speed limit]" O: "I clocked you at [speed over that is over the limit]. Why do you think that is?" Y: "I don't know Sir, perhaps the device clocked a different vehicle?" O: "There weren't any other vehicles around." Y: "I don't know what to say then Sir."
- tempestn 12y ago
  Lying to the police, even by intentionally misinterpreting the question, is probably a bad idea.
rasz_pl 12y ago
>"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" "How can I help you officer?" / "What seems to be the problem?" etc
logfromblammo 12y ago
If you answer directly, it should be to say "I only know what my speedometer displays." And then politely decline to mention the number it had been displaying. If you say a number, in the cops eyes, you are either lying or confessing. If you just say "yes", you cut off certain affirmative defenses you could otherwise raise. If you say "no", the cop may charge you with reckless or inattentive driving rather than speeding. There is literally no way to answer that question that can help you, the best you can do is say the thing that hurts you least. The answer that you should train yourself to give is "I do not consent to searches, seizures, or questioning without the assistance of legal counsel. Am I free to go? If not, why am I being detained?" The same response covers all police questions in the US. You can repeat the entire thing on subsequent questions, or you can shorten it to "I don't consent to questioning without the assistance of legal counsel." You have to train yourself. Your natural instinct will be to present as nonthreatening and cooperative. You need to be nonthreatening and unimaginably stubborn. If you have ever seen the television show "COPS", very nearly every "guest star" just talks himself right into a trip to jail. Almost every episode is a variation on this: COP: Sir, can you think of any reason why I should arrest you tonight? Dumb-Assed Suspect: I have drugs in my pocket. COP (to DAS): Put your hands behind your back. [COP handcuffs DAS and performs a search.] COP (to camera): He just gave us reasonable suspicion, so I searched him and found drugs. He's going to jail now. Don't be that guy. After you give your canned response, one of several things should happen. The cop realizes you're going to be actual work, and releases you with a stern warning, so he can pursue easier marks. The cop realizes that he gets overtime pay for appearing in court to testify, and you might go to trial, so he issues the summons. The cop gets personally offended at your "constitutional bullshit" and actually arrests you on a "contempt of cop" pretext charge, which will vary by jurisdiction. This is a punitive inconvenience for you, but you can then launch a civil suit that will probably pay out, after you consult with a civil rights attorney. If you have any inkling it might go down the third way, it would be wise to record the entire encounter and make public records requests for any recordings the police may have in their possession as soon as you possibly can. And you should have such an inkling. So record every police encounter, always. If it's a routine encounter, you can always delete the video, but if it goes bad, you can't magic up a recording out of thin air.
- 12y ago

dingaling 12y ago

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The only responses you should use in such situations are: 'No comment' 'Am I free to go?' Plus the statutory minimum ( name, address, DoB according to your local legislation ). Psychologically it is very, very difficult. One way to try to handle it is to pretend you're responding to Emacs Eliza, which will always try to turn your words back onto you.

smcl 12y ago
Have you used either of those responses before? Judging from my limited exposure with the police this sort of "technically I don't have to do this\answer this" response is an invite for a cranky cop to do everything they can to inconvenience you as a punishment. For example in my case if I'd carried on doing what I was doing (talking to my friend at conversational level and smiling, while a passing police officer told me "you can wipe that smirk off your face or I'll do it for you" followed by vague suggestions that I should be taken to the police station) I should be able to rest easy knowing I've done nothing wrong and there's not a single crime I could've been found guilty of at that moment. However, they probably could've made my life extremely unpleasant - taking me in for some sort of "questioning", spending a night in the cells - who knows. So this is a long-winded way to ask - is that totally ironclad\foolproof, or is there a non-zero chance that this response will make the situation worse despite being totally legal?
- tempestn 12y ago
  One thing they can easily do, which once happened to me after being nothing but polite: take your driver's license, walk back to their car, and play on their phone for half an hour. I imagine the chances of that would go up with a non-cooperative response. I'm certainly not saying you should spill your guts, but at least being as polite as possible without saying anything incriminating seems sensible.
- lmm 12y ago
  It's about the worst case. Can that make the situation worse? Absolutely. A cop can, at least where I live, throw you in a cell for 48 hours for any reason (other than being a member of a protected class) or none, just on their say-so. If they do it every day their superiors are going to start asking questions, but for a one-off "trust me on this one guys" a cop definitely has that legal authority, and if you piss them off enough it could be the difference between walking away and spending those two nights in jail. (More realistically, it'll make the difference between walking away and going down to the station to be fingerprinted and the like and released after a few hours). But if you incriminate yourself, or commit a crime by e.g. making a false statement as in the article, then you could be looking at a lot more than two nights.
- philbarr 12y ago
  Exactly - I know someone who tried to go the smart-arse route, and the police ended up spending 45 minutes looking into every possible detail of the car, right down to "the lights have the wrong pattern on them". Ended up costing them far more than just accepting a speeding ticket.

venomsnake 12y ago

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" The proper answer is - "No, because I know exactly where I am"

Erwin 12y ago
That's going to get you instantly arrested in Albuquerque, NM.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  They outlaw science there?
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Perhaps the opposite: Maybe he was referencing the physics research there?

dvirsky 12y ago

How can saying "Yes, I know" get you into bigger trouble than a speeding ticket? At best you can try to lie and state a legal speed if you were going in a borderline speed. Anyway, it could be different in the US (I'm from Israel, where police is brutal only if you're Palestinian or holding a political rally. Otherwise they're mostly useless). I only got pulled once, for not coming to a complete stop on a stop sign (I slowed down to almost a complete stop). I just politely said "yeah officer, I did slow down, but it's my bad, sorry". The reaction was "oh well, I see you don't have any prior traffic violations, I'm going to let this one slide, have a nice day".

pluma 12y ago
No indicates recklessness. Yes indicates intent. You're screwed either way.
- jrs235 12y ago
  No might indicate negligence, which isn't as horrible as recklessness.
- jrs235 12y ago
  Yes doesn't indicate anything except awareness. They usually will follow it up with "How fast were you going?"
- fluidcruft 12y ago
  I agree "no" is a bad idea. But I doubt "yes" has to do with intent at all. I think procedurally what the officer is doing is establishing a documentation record to support their speed facts because that makes it easy for them if/when you contest the ticket in court. The officer has a preferred narrative/mold and is trying find a way to document that you agree with that version at the time you were pulled over in case you try to change the story later in court. So "yes, I know" seems to work essentially as that blanket acceptance of the officer's narrative.
- dvirsky 12y ago
  But what's the worst that could happen? Let's say you're not drunk, you don't have anything illegal in your car, and the speed is nothing too bad. You were just speeding. Can anything you say result in anything worse than a ticket and a fine?

akent 12y ago

> "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Do as politicians do; don't answer the question, change tack. "Here's my driver licence, officer."

ctdonath 12y ago

"Do you know how fast you were going?" Or, in my case a couple weeks back, "any reason you were going so fast?" You don't have to answer. I didn't (though I may have babbled some irrelevancies while digging out the paperwork). It's actually quite a mental & social breakthrough to realize you don't have to answer people's questions. As for being a victim or witness, still best to keep statements very short, as in "that man assaulted me, there's the stick he hit me with, and that woman walking away saw it, I want to press charges and I need to talk to a lawyer" or "I witnessed the attack, here's my contact information". You say what you must to establish legitimate victimhood ("she stole my cocaine" isn't), identify perpetrators and witnesses, and identify probable perishable evidence. Then. Shut. Up. The only thing to say at this point is "am I free to go?" - repeatedly, if necessary. They'll say & do darned near anything, but at some point they have to either arrest you or not stop you from leaving.

jrs235 12y ago
Officer: "any reason you were going so fast?" You: "I wasn't going fast. I was driving at a safe and prudent speed given the conditions." ADD: It is good to know if the state you are in or states your frequently drive in is/are "Maximum Speed Limit" or "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" state(s). I grew up in Minnesota which is a "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" but now live in WI which is a "Maximum Speed Limit". The nice thing about Minnesota and "Presumed Maximum Speed Limit" is that if you are on a highway outside of a municipality (so in a township) then the posted speed limits are only presumed to be the maximum speed limit. Going faster is prima facie evidence of going to fast and allows officers to stop you. However, if you choose to fight the ticket in court, you can admit to going faster than the posted limit and argue that you were still driving a safe and prudent speed given the conditions. So, if you were in the country driving 65 on a straight and level road with a posted speed limit of 55 on a clear, dry day with 10+ miles of visibility and no other cars on the road, people or animals int he ditch or near the shoulder and a cop caught you on his laser device sitting 1/2 mile down the road, assuming you slowed down to 55 mph before getting close to him, you could argue these facts in court and argue that "the facts and outcomes speak for themselves"... no one was harmed or injured showing again that the speed of 65 mph in those conditions and circumstances was in fact still safe and prudent. In Wisconsin, if you admit to going over the posted speed limit anywhere, you're guilty of not driving a safe and prudent speed no matter what. IANAL, but this book was an eye opener: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413312519/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1413312519&linkCode=as2&tag=ptbgw-20&linkId=XU424AMFF4KCUYEI http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413312519/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... (affiliate link) save your money though and borrow it from the library.

jrs235 12y ago

Officer: "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" You: "The speed limit." (Even if going faster than the limit, you were minimally going the limit.) O: "Do you know what the speed limit is?" Y: "Yes, it's [speed limit]" O: "I clocked you at [speed over that is over the limit]. Why do you think that is?" Y: "I don't know Sir, perhaps the device clocked a different vehicle?" O: "There weren't any other vehicles around." Y: "I don't know what to say then Sir."

tempestn 12y ago
Lying to the police, even by intentionally misinterpreting the question, is probably a bad idea.

rasz_pl 12y ago

>"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" "How can I help you officer?" / "What seems to be the problem?" etc

logfromblammo 12y ago

If you answer directly, it should be to say "I only know what my speedometer displays." And then politely decline to mention the number it had been displaying. If you say a number, in the cops eyes, you are either lying or confessing. If you just say "yes", you cut off certain affirmative defenses you could otherwise raise. If you say "no", the cop may charge you with reckless or inattentive driving rather than speeding. There is literally no way to answer that question that can help you, the best you can do is say the thing that hurts you least. The answer that you should train yourself to give is "I do not consent to searches, seizures, or questioning without the assistance of legal counsel. Am I free to go? If not, why am I being detained?" The same response covers all police questions in the US. You can repeat the entire thing on subsequent questions, or you can shorten it to "I don't consent to questioning without the assistance of legal counsel." You have to train yourself. Your natural instinct will be to present as nonthreatening and cooperative. You need to be nonthreatening and unimaginably stubborn. If you have ever seen the television show "COPS", very nearly every "guest star" just talks himself right into a trip to jail. Almost every episode is a variation on this: COP: Sir, can you think of any reason why I should arrest you tonight? Dumb-Assed Suspect: I have drugs in my pocket. COP (to DAS): Put your hands behind your back. [COP handcuffs DAS and performs a search.] COP (to camera): He just gave us reasonable suspicion, so I searched him and found drugs. He's going to jail now. Don't be that guy. After you give your canned response, one of several things should happen. The cop realizes you're going to be actual work, and releases you with a stern warning, so he can pursue easier marks. The cop realizes that he gets overtime pay for appearing in court to testify, and you might go to trial, so he issues the summons. The cop gets personally offended at your "constitutional bullshit" and actually arrests you on a "contempt of cop" pretext charge, which will vary by jurisdiction. This is a punitive inconvenience for you, but you can then launch a civil suit that will probably pay out, after you consult with a civil rights attorney. If you have any inkling it might go down the third way, it would be wise to record the entire encounter and make public records requests for any recordings the police may have in their possession as soon as you possibly can. And you should have such an inkling. So record every police encounter, always. If it's a routine encounter, you can always delete the video, but if it goes bad, you can't magic up a recording out of thin air.

12y ago